by USA TODAY

by USA TODAY

The Boston Globe, editorial: The most striking aspect of the Pentagon's decision to lift a 1994 ban on combat duty for women last week was the lack of any substantive opposition in Congress. ... That's partly because the new policy reflects the actual practice in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also gives belated acknowledgment to the over 150 women who have died in uniform since 2001. They did, in fact, perish in combat."

Ryan Smith,The Wall Street Journal: "Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. ... Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms."

A.B. Stoddard, The Hill: "It is not expected that many women will likely seek combat assignments, however, and only those who meet the stringent requirements for combat will be selected. ... Yet no matter the merits, lifting this ban now will create profound challenges for the military. The transition to implementing a repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' along with the integration of women into combat roles at a time of steep budget-cutting, will make things very difficult for all of the armed forces for the near term - and that could last years."

Mark Thompson,Time: "Integrating women into the combat arms - primarily infantry, armor and artillery - is going to be a balancing act. Standards must be met, but there will be pressure to ensure enough women qualify so there's not only one or two in a 150-troop company."

Susan Reimer,The Baltimore Sun: "My neighbor in Annapolis is in the U.S. Naval Academy, and I see the young men and women midshipmen, in their crisp uniforms, everywhere I go. I know how hard they work, at their studies, their sports and their military responsibilities, and the idea that the guys would eventually have choices and earn benefits that the women would not makes the feminist in me angry. But the mother in me is not happy. I would rather they all graduated to carrying clipboards on battleships and none would be as close to death as those in war zones."

Chloe Angyal,MSNBC: "We should be able to celebrate this policy change as a victory for gender equality. ... And yet, when a woman in the armed forces has a higher chance of being raped by a fellow servicemember than of being killed by the enemy, it is awfully hard to celebrate. According to official estimates, 20% of women serving in the United States armed forces will be sexually assaulted while serving their country. In all likelihood, the real figure is larger than that, given low reporting rates."

Adam Serwer, Mother Jones: "Removing the restriction is not about celebrating militarism. The military has long been a path for historically disfavored groups to claim the full benefits of citizenship. Justifying discrimination against blacks, gays and lesbians, or women becomes much more difficult when they're giving their lives for their country."